US v. Carl Waites, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00062-IMK-RWT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999992579]. [16-4437]

Appeal: 16-4437

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL WAITES, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00062-IMK-RWT-1)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4437

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Carl

Waites,

III,

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment

revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a sentence
of 10 months’ imprisonment followed by 26 months’ supervised
release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal.

Waites was informed of his right

to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
“We review a district court's ultimate decision to revoke a
defendant's supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its
“factual

findings

underlying

a

revocation

for

clear

error.”

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).

Waites admitted to the charged

violations of his supervised release and noted no objection to
any part of the hearing.

We discern no error in the district

court’s decision to revoke Waites’ supervised release. Moreover,
we

conclude

requirements

that
of

the

Fed.

district

R.

Crim.

court
P.

complied

32.1

the

conducting

in

with

the

revocation hearing.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v.

Webb,

sentence

738

F.3d

that

“is

638,

640

within

(4th

the

Cir.

statutory
2

2013).
maximum

imposing

a

United States
A

revocation

and

is

not

Appeal: 16-4437

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

plainly unreasonable” will be affirmed on appeal. Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).

In evaluating a revocation sentence,

we assess it for reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and
substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original
criminal sentence.
(4th

Cir.

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438

2006).

reasonable

if

statements

the

A

revocation

district

contained

in

court

Chapter

sentence
has

is

procedurally

considered

Seven

of

the

the

policy

Sentencing

Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated
in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).

Id. at 439.

The district court also must provide an explanation for its
chosen sentence, but the explanation “need not be as detailed or
specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when
imposing

a

Thompson,

595

sentence

is

post-conviction
F.3d

544,

sentence.”

547

substantively

(4th

Cir.

reasonable

United
2010).

if

the

States
A

v.

revocation

district

court

states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should
receive the sentence imposed.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

Only if

we find a sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable
will we determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so.

Id. at

439.
After

giving

Waites

the

opportunity

to

allocute

and

considering the parties’ arguments and the relevant statutory
factors, the district court sentenced Waites within the policy
3

Appeal: 16-4437

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/22/2016

statement range.

Pg: 4 of 4

The district court provided an explanation

tailored to Waites, focusing on the fact that Waites committed
multiple

violations

supervised

than

began.

release

less

We

two

months

therefore

after

conclude

his

term

that

of

Waites’

sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
We

have

examined

the

entire

record

in

accordance

with

the

requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

judgment

of

the

district

court.
This court requires that counsel inform Waites, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for

further

filed,

but

review.
counsel

If

Waites

believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Waites.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4